--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>

> > I do remember that Olson said Indic scripts were descendant from
> > Aramaic alphabet and were 'semi-syllabaries'. This indicated to
> > a return to the syllabic mode in the east.
> Where did he get that word,

'semi-syllabaries'? I have no idea!

> and they can't
> have "returned" to anyplace they'd never been!

I said it was a 'return'. However, I didn't mean that India
returned to the syllabic mode but that writing systems transformed
from the alphabetic mode *back* to the syllabic mode in India.

> Then study your DeFrancis!

I am really in favour of transparent terminology. Morpheme meets
syllable, ergo, morphosyllabic. I don't want to have to have read
this book and that book. Personally I like reading but I want to
talk to other people without saying "read this book and that book."

I also don't want to say 'logos' doesn't mean 'word' anymore because
so-and-so says.

Suzanne McCarthy